If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Comment

If someone built an unrestricted interstate on the street in front of your house and kids and pets were run over an killed on a daily basis you would build fences, you would campaign for speed restriction, you would campaign for traffic mitigation plans, you would lose your mind.

But since it's some other kid in some other place you say it's sad and shrug your shoulders. Fuck that.

This is about the worst analogy you've ever done. You don't want fences built. You want the cars confiscated.

Comment

No, I don’t. And you’ll never find a post of mine saying otherwise. (With the exception of fully automatic rifles still in circulation)

I want fences, and speed limits, and drivers licenses.

But I thought you wanted to stop these things from happening. That will never stop these from happening and ANY measure that calls for confiscating legally owned guns from people that haven't broken the law is why you won't get what you claim to want.

As I've pointed out to you numerous times, we already have the laws on the books to stop 90 to 95 percent of all gun crimes. Instead of enforcing those laws, idiots let their feelings get in the way and push for more laws that will be ineffective at solving the problem. Take your confiscate select fire weapons bullshit. Since 1934, when those weapons first became regulated, a legally owned and registered select fire weapon has been used in a crime less than 5 times. Since new production for civilian ownership was banned in May of 1986, they have not been used in a crime at all.

So please, tell me which would be more effective at fixing this problem...confiscating weapons used in less than .0000001 percent of all gun homicides? Or prosecuting the more than 1 million people caught to be attempting to purchase a weapon illegally, or illegally in possession of a firearm over the last 20 years?

Comment

But I thought you wanted to stop these things from happening. That will never stop these from happening and ANY measure that calls for confiscating legally owned guns from people that haven't broken the law is why you won't get what you claim to want.

As I've pointed out to you numerous times, we already have the laws on the books to stop 90 to 95 percent of all gun crimes. Instead of enforcing those laws, idiots let their feelings get in the way and push for more laws that will be ineffective at solving the problem. Take your confiscate select fire weapons bullshit. Since 1934, when those weapons first became regulated, a legally owned and registered select fire weapon has been used in a crime less than 5 times. Since new production for civilian ownership was banned in May of 1986, they have not been used in a crime at all.

So please, tell me which would be more effective at fixing this problem...confiscating weapons used in less than .0000001 percent of all gun homicides? Or prosecuting the more than 1 million people caught to be attempting to purchase a weapon illegally, or illegally in possession of a firearm over the last 20 years?

Can someone post the old El Paso why not both girl for me?

Comment

Because of this thing called compromise. Gun owners are not going to give up rights for something that does not provide a solution. Let's look at this another way. Hate speech inciting violence is a serious problem, not on the same scale as gun violence, but still pretty bad. Would you be fine if someone came in and said that they were going to confiscate everybody's cellphones because they can be used to spread hate speech? Especially considering the fact that it wouldn't do a thing to stop people using hate speech? Or we can ban chat groups where most of the hate speech originates. Would you be fine with a why not both solution?

Gun violence can be brought under control without banning any guns and without confiscating guns from law abiding citizens. There's no need for a why not both solution when one will definitely work and the other gives people a reason to be against it. How hard is that to understand. It makes perfect sense when you take emotion out of the equation.